Diagnostic methods in dyspepsia: the usefulness of upper abdominal ultrasound and gastroscopy

A new approach to the management of uninvestigated dyspepsia in primary care

Introduction:

The prevalence of dyspepsia in the general population worldwide is very high (20-40%). Upper abdominal complaints are one of the most common cause of patients’ visits to primary care settings. Making an accurate etiological diagnosis of dyspepsia is difficult, but is an important challenge and goal for every doctor in primary care practice. Clinical guidelines have standards for gastroesophageal reflux disease, management of Helicobacter infection and indications for the use of endoscopy (empiric treatment, prompt endoscopy, “test and treat”). In spite of the application of those standards, many patients experience no improvement in their symptoms or often the recurrence of disease.

Aim:

This study presents a new approach to the diagnostic and therapeutic management of uninvestigated dyspepsia in primary care settings to provide long-term effective control of symptoms for family doctors.

Material and methods:

3000 unselected consecutive dyspeptic patients underwent abdominal ultrasound, and 1000 dyspeptic patients from the same group upper endoscopy.. In this approach diagnostic evaluation of dyspepsia includes: abdominal ultrasonography as a first line obligatory routine method and the exact estimation of nutritional condition.

Results:

Abdominal ultrasound, physical examination and BMI control have significant value in the diagnostic evaluation of dyspepsia. The therapeutic approach includes, besides general standards (acid suppressive drugs, eradication of H. pylori, prokinetic and antidepressant agents), life style modification and nutritional interventions as first-line treatments. In this approach the use of new drugs such as ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), pre and probiotics, and digestive enzymes supplements is recommended.

Conclusion:

Throug the combination of different diagnostic procedures as first line methods, including abdominal ultrasound and nutritional condition (BMI), a family doctor can manage successfully uninvestigated dyspepsia at the primary care level.

The management of patients with new onset of upper gastro-intestinal symptoms in primary care

BACKGROUND

Data dealing with dyspepsia management in general practice are lacking, and most of the studies investigated a subset of patients with suspected peptic ulcer disease either with or without previous complaints.

AIMS

To evaluate the one-year management of patients presenting new onset upper abdominal symptoms without alarming features.

METHODS

275 patients were enrolled by 63 Italian general practitioners.

RESULTS

Referral to upper gastro-intestinal tract endoscopy resulted significantly higher in patients with predominant epigastric pain compared to subjects with non-painful symptoms or non-dominant symptoms. Amongst drug therapies, only prokinetics and antacids and anti-secretory therapies were prescribed differently amongst clinical subgroups. The rate and type of management and referrals resulted were not influenced by the age of patients or the use of anti-inflammatory drugs. The most frequent diagnosis at one-year follow-up was reflux oesophagitis. The absence of organic disease was less frequent in patients with dominant epigastric pain than non-painful or non-dominant symptoms.

CONCLUSION

The management of these patients in primary care in Italy is mainly determined by clinical presentation, independent of age. Any judgement about appropriateness of the treatment should consider not only conventional features such as age, but the more complex individual frameworks as well.

Societal costs for irritable bowel syndrome--a population based study

OBJECTIVE

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is associated with increased use of health care services. This study aims to estimate the costs of IBS in relation to differing diagnostic criteria of IBS, duration of symptoms, gender, and age.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A two-phase postal survey. Questionnaire I covering gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms by Manning and Rome II criteria was mailed to 5000 randomly selected adults. Questionnaire II, mailed to those fulfilling IBS criteria of Questionnaire I, recorded data on physician visits, medications, and diagnostic procedures performed.

RESULTS

Proportion of GI consulters was 48% (95% CI 41-55%) and 32% (95% CI 28-36%) for Rome II and Manning groups. Annual GI related individual costs were euro 497 (95% CI euro 382-621) and euro 295 (95% CI euro 246-347) by Rome II and Manning criteria. Societal GI costs were euro 82 million and euro 154 million by Rome II and Manning criteria. Direct non-GI costs amounted to euro 43 million and euro 126 million by Rome II and Manning criteria. Duration of GI symptoms, gender, or age had no impact on GI costs.

CONCLUSIONS

IBS incurs substantial GI and non-GI costs corresponding to a share of up to 5% of the national direct outpatient and medicine expenditures. The more restrictive Rome II criteria identify an IBS population incurring higher GI related individual costs than Manning criteria. Costs due to GI endoscopies are not lower for those with a long history of symptoms suggesting that guideline recommendations for avoiding repeated diagnostic procedures may not be followed.

WITHDRAWN: Initial management strategies for dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

This review considers management strategies (combinations of initial investigation and empirical treatments) for dyspeptic patients. Dyspepsia was defined to include both epigastric pain and heartburn.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness, acceptability, and cost effectiveness of the following initial management strategies for patients presenting with dyspepsia (a) Initial pharmacological therapy (including endoscopy for treatment failures). (b) Early endoscopy. (c) Testing for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori )and endoscope only those positive. (d) H. pylori eradication therapy with or without prior testing.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were located through electronic searches and extensive contact with trialists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials of dyspeptic patients presenting in primary care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected on dyspeptic symptoms, quality of life and use of resources. An individual patient data meta-analysis of health economic data was conducted

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five papers reporting 27 comparisons were found. Trials comparing proton pump inhibitors (PPI) with antacids (three trials) and histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) (three trials), early endoscopy with initial acid suppression (five trials), H. pylori test and endoscope versus usual management (three trials), H. pylori test and treat versus endoscopy (six trials), and test and treat versus acid suppression alone in H. pylori positive patients (four trials), were pooled. PPIs were significantly more effective than both H2RAs and antacids. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were; for PPI compared with antacid 0.72 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.80), PPI compared with H2RA 0.63 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.85). Results for other drug comparisons were either absent or inconclusive. Initial endoscopy was associated with a small reduction in the risk of recurrent dyspeptic symptoms compared with H. pylori test and treat (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96), but was not cost effective (mean additional cost of endoscopy US$401 (95% CI $328 to 474). Test and treat may be more effective than acid suppression alone (RR 0.59 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Proton pump inhibitor drugs (PPIs) are effective in the treatment of dyspepsia in these trials which may not adequately exclude patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). The relative efficacy of histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and PPIs is uncertain. Early investigation by endoscopy or H. pylori testing may benefit some patients with dyspepsia but is not cost effective as part of an overall management strategy.

Initial management strategies for dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

This review considers management strategies (combinations of initial investigation and empirical treatments) for dyspeptic patients. Dyspepsia was defined to include both epigastric pain and heartburn.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness, acceptability, and cost effectiveness of the following initial management strategies for patients presenting with dyspepsia: (a) Initial pharmacological therapy (including endoscopy for treatment failures). (b) Early endoscopy. (c) Testing for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori )and endoscope only those positive. (d) H. pylori eradication therapy with or without prior testing.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were located through electronic searches and extensive contact with trialists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials of dyspeptic patients presenting in primary care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected on dyspeptic symptoms, quality of life and use of resources. An individual patient data meta-analysis of health economic data was conducted

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five papers reporting 27 comparisons were found. Trials comparing proton pump inhibitors (PPI) with antacids (three trials) and histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) (three trials), early endoscopy with initial acid suppression (five trials), H. pylori test and endoscope versus usual management (three trials), H. pylori test and treat versus endoscopy (six trials), and test and treat versus acid suppression alone in H. pylori positive patients (four trials), were pooled. PPIs were significantly more effective than both H2RAs and antacids. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were; for PPI compared with antacid 0.72 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.80), PPI compared with H2RA 0.63 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.85). Results for other drug comparisons were either absent or inconclusive. Initial endoscopy was associated with a small reduction in the risk of recurrent dyspeptic symptoms compared with H. pylori test and treat (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96), but was not cost effective (mean additional cost of endoscopy US$401 (95% CI $328 to 474). Test and treat may be more effective than acid suppression alone (RR 0.59 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Proton pump inhibitor drugs (PPIs) are effective in the treatment of dyspepsia in these trials which may not adequately exclude patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). The relative efficacy of histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and PPIs is uncertain. Early investigation by endoscopy or H. pylori testing may benefit some patients with dyspepsia but is not cost effective as part of an overall management strategy.

Guidelines for the management of dyspepsia

Dyspepsia is a chronic or recurrent pain or discomfort centered in the upper abdomen; patients with predominant or frequent (more than once a week) heartburn or acid regurgitation, should be considered to have gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) until proven otherwise. Dyspeptic patients over 55 yr of age, or those with alarm features should undergo prompt esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). In all other patients, there are two approximately equivalent options: (i) test and treat for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) using a validated noninvasive test and a trial of acid suppression if eradication is successful but symptoms do not resolve or (ii) an empiric trial of acid suppression with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) for 4-8 wk. The test-and-treat option is preferable in populations with a moderate to high prevalence of H. pylori infection (> or =10%); empirical PPI is an initial option in low prevalence situations. If initial acid suppression fails after 2-4 wk, it is reasonable to consider changing drug class or dosing. If the patient fails to respond or relapses rapidly on stopping antisecretory therapy, then the test-and-treat strategy is best applied before consideration of referral for EGD. Prokinetics are not currently recommended as first-line therapy for uninvestigated dyspepsia. EGD is not mandatory in those who remain symptomatic as the yield is low; the decision to endoscope or not must be based on clinical judgement. In patients who do respond to initial therapy, stop treatment after 4-8 wk; if symptoms recur, another course of the same treatment is justified. The management of functional dyspepsia is challenging when initial antisecretory therapy and H. pylori eradication fails. There are very limited data to support the use of low-dose tricyclic antidepressants or psychological treatments in functional dyspepsia.

Clinical value of ultrasound in the evaluation of dyspepsia in primary health care

OBJECTIVE

In general practice, upper abdominal ultrasound (US) is widely used in the evaluation of patients with dyspepsia. However, there is a dearth of published data on the role of US in the dyspepsia work-up. There are no data on the use of US as a follow-up study in functional dyspepsia. The aims of this study were to assess the role of US in evaluating dyspepsia, and to assess the long-term clinical relevance of minor findings revealed by US in patients with functional dyspepsia.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four hundred consecutive dyspeptic patients were recruited. At baseline, all patients underwent gastroscopy and US. Patients were divided into two groups: "endoscopy-negative patients" and "endoscopy-positive patients". "The endoscopy-negative" group included all cases in which the final diagnoses could not be settled after gastroscopy. US was repeated after 6-7 years in patients who had functional dyspepsia.

RESULTS

In the endoscopy-negative group, gallstones were detected in 21 patients, but this was considered to be a cause of symptoms in 9 patients. No malignant lesions were detected by US in the endoscopy-negative group. In the endoscopy-positive group, a malignant tumor in the kidney was suspected in 3 patients. Only one of these tumors turned out to be an incidental small carcinoma. Moreover, several minor findings were shown by US: usually these consisted of abnormal echogenicity of the liver. During the follow-up period, 6 patients developed gallstones. At the end of the follow-up period, two clinically significant findings were diagnosed: a small renal cancer and hydronephrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the wide, untargeted use of abdominal US in the evaluation of patients with dyspepsia following a gastroscopy is not necessary. Repeated US examination in cases of functional dyspepsia is not recommended, and rarely changes the diagnosis.

Optimal management of patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia: considerations for the treatment of the elderly

Optimal therapy for patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia still remains elusive. Increasing consensus on the definition of non-ulcer dyspepsia may improve the design of clinical trials and result in more effective therapies for this common condition. This paper reviews the investigation, pathophysiology and therapy of non-ulcer dyspepsia in order to formulate management strategies in the elderly. The best outcome for the patient can be achieved by detailed evaluation, leading to therapy targeted to obvious precipitating factors such as dyspepsia-inducing medications and other aggravating factors such as slow-transit constipation. Prokinetics and, to a lesser extent, H(2) receptor antagonists are the main medications of choice. Cisapride, the best studied prokinetic, has been withdrawn from the market in certain countries because some patients experienced dangerous cardiac arrhythmias, especially when cisapride was given with potent inhibitors of cytochrome P450 3A4. Time spent on reassurance and judicious use of antidepressants for the right patient can help improve symptoms. In the elderly, however, persistent symptoms should be re-evaluated because of the increased incidence of malignancy.

Management of uninvestigated and functional dyspepsia: a Working Party report for the World Congresses of Gastroenterology 1998

BACKGROUND

The management of dyspepsia is controversial.

METHODS

An international Working Party was convened in 1998 to review management strategies for dyspepsia and functional dyspepsia, based on a review of the literature and best clinical practice.

RESULTS

Dyspepsia, defined as pain or discomfort centred in the upper abdomen, can be managed with reassurance and over-the-counter therapy if its duration is less than 4 weeks on initial presentation. For patients with chronic symptoms, clinical evaluation depends on alarm features including patient age. The age cut off selected should depend on the age specific incidence when gastric cancer begins to increase, but in Western nations 50 years is generally an acceptable age threshold. In younger patients without alarm features, Helicobacter pylori test and treatment is the approach recommended because of its value in eliminating the peptic ulcer disease diathesis. If, after eradication of H. pylori, symptoms either are not relieved or rapidly recur, then an empirical trial of therapy is recommended. Similarly, in H. pylori-negative patients without alarm features, an empirical trial (with antisecretory or prokinetic therapy depending on the predominant symptom) for up to 8 weeks is recommended. If drugs fail, endoscopy should be considered because of its reassurance value although the yield will be low. In older patients or those with alarm features, prompt endoscopy is recommended. If endoscopy is non-diagnostic, gastric biopsies are recommended to document H. pylori status unless already known. While treatment of H. pylori is unlikely to relieve the symptoms of functional dyspepsia, the long-term benefits probably outweigh the risks and treatment can be considered on a case-by-case basis. In H. pylori-negative patients with documented functional dyspepsia, antisecretory or prokinetic therapy, depending on the predominant symptom, is reasonable, assuming reassurance and explanation are insufficient, unless patients have already failed this approach. Other treatment options include antidepressants, antispasmodics, visceral analgesics such as serotonin type 3 receptor antagonists, and behavioural or psychotherapy although these are all of uncertain efficacy. Long-term drug treatment in functional dyspepsia should be avoided; intermittent short courses of treatment as needed is preferred.

CONCLUSION

The management of dyspepsia recommended is based on current best evidence but must be tailored to local factors such as practice setting, the background prevalence of H. pylori and structural disease, and costs.

How should new-onset dyspepsia be managed in general and specialist practice?

Managing patients with new-onset dyspeptic symptoms represents a real challenge in clinical decision-making. The major controversy has been over the optimal management strategy of patients with new-onset dyspeptic symptoms who do not present with alarm symptoms. Since unaided clinical diagnosis is unreliable, proposed management strategies have included empirical treatment algorithms, computer-assisted predictive score models and Helicobacter pylori-based strategies such as test-and-scope or test-and-treat algorithms. Endoscopy remains the diagnostic 'gold standard', and the management should ideally be based on endoscopic diagnosis. Because of economic constraints and increasing waiting lists, this is not possible. When precise and comprehensive guidelines have been formulated, future patients will probably be managed in primary care by a Helicobacter test-and-treat policy, leaving only empirical treatment failures for specialist evaluation.